There is a good reason why improving the education of the students in our schools should be the top priority for the city. A recent study of unemployment in this country shows that people with less than a high school education are suffering from unemployment a significantly higher rate than those with more education --- currently, unemployment among those with below a HS education is around 15%, compared to about 9% with those graduated high school, and 4% for those with a bachelor's degree or higher.

That should really not be a huge surprise to anyone....as the more education people have, the more options they have open to them. And while many college grads are under-employed, they are at least able to make some money for their families.

It follows then, that a city zip code like the 64128 zip code (chosen solely because it is where Kansas City Central High School is located) that has a population that has double the state average in people with out a high school education, also has a high unemployment rate -- and thus triple the state average for people living in poverty.

No one wins when the kids in this city don't get a good education...not the kids, not the families, not employers looking for skilled workers, and not the city and its taxpayers.

But we, as a city, need to quit looking at our own best interests....and figure out what is best for the STUDENTS. Because their success...and getting them through school, is paramount for this city, and must be the primary determining factor. It is too important to not make it the first priority.

First of all, let's make no mistake -- consolidation is absolutely necessary. The school district has dropped in the number of students dramatically over the past decade. In 1999-2000, the KCMO school district housed 35,712 students. This year, the district is educating only 17,275 students.

The declines have been driven by a number of factors -- including the movement of families to other parts of the city that have better quality schools, as well as an increase in the number of charter schools available in the city.

The decrease in number of students for the school district has led to many of the school buildings being only half, or less than half, full. The half-empty buildings drives up the costs for the district because they have to be cleaned, maintained, and heated -- and also lead to disciplinary issues because it is easy for students to find trouble in unused wings and floors of school buildings.

Closing some school buildings is absolutely the responsible thing to do...but it does come at a cost.

Schools are a major part of neighborhoods. Families prefer to live in neighborhoods where they can be close to schools. Also, neighborhoods take pride in their schools and can often lead to the bringing of neighborhoods together.

So the situation is a catch 22 for the city, and the school district. There is certainly no easy solution. However, if the school district wants to handle the consolidation successfully, and with city support, it will have to balance the very difficult challenge.

The number one priority MUST be improving the schools -- and the education received by the students there. The single biggest problem facing Kansas City, MO right now is the schools. Many of the city's other problems like crime & poverty, stem directly from our traditionally poor education system. Other many of our other problems stem from the unwillingness of middle-class families to live in the city because of the poor schools -- which weakens the tax base, and the demand for housing in the city -- which lowers property values and tax revenues.

So the schools MUST be #1.

However, the district needs to work with the city on the best ways to handle closed school buildings. While some should be kept in the short term with the hope that the district can grow again and move back into the buildings, most will need at least short term solutions to keep them used. The district and the city should work together to see which abandoned schools would make good community centers/park space, which could be leased (or sold) to Charter schools, and which ones could be leased (or sold) as office space or loft space.

But simply leaving the buildings to decay in the neighborhoods cannot be an option. Because the 2nd most important thing our city needs is fewer abandoned, blighted buildings that lead to safety issues in neighborhoods.

I believe the consolidation can be done -- and in fact must be done -- well for the betterment of the city.

Have an opinion about the schools? Here is a list of how to let the schoolboard know your thoughts. They are actually providing a variety of ways of letting them know your thoughts and will be posting them for everyone to read at www.kcu4ea.org/kcmsdforums/ So contact them and be part of the converstation:

VIA TEXT MESSAGE: Instructions- send your comments in a text message to: 95495- start your message with KCMSDFORUMS - you will receive an auto text message to confirm we got your text. - you may sign your name or be anonymous

VIA TWITTER:Instructions- If you have a twitter account, tweet your comments and use the hashtag #kcmsdforums- comments using this hashtag will be posted at www.kcu4ea.org/kcmsdforums/ along with the text message comments received.

Before I go any further, I want to state up front that the privatized shelter for KCMO has been an excellent move by the city. The city is currently paying $175,000 a year less for the privatized shelter vs the cost of running the shelter themselves. As the city faces a lot of tough economic decisions with the budget, this is money well saved.

Under the private shelter arrangement, adoptions are up 150% (from 978 adoptions in 2008, to 2498 in 2009) and euthanasia is down significantly (shelter numbers show a decrease of 35% -- which is close to the number in the KC Star article, but not near the 65% mentioned on the KCTV5 newscast). The privatized shelter has been great for animals in Kansas City. The saved money has been great for taxpayers.

While I am excited by the good news, for animal lovers in KC, it is best to temper our enthusiasm. In order for us to truly become a no kill city, we must be honest about where we really are in our quest to become no kill. And in spite of Dr. Steckelberg's claims, we're really not close.

In 2009, the shelter killed 3,114 dogs and cats (1821 dogs, 1293 cats) - which is way more than the 100 per month they said they need to save in order to get to no kill. We don't know where this "100 per month" number comes from but KCMO impounded approximately 7500 dogs and cats this year. The 90% save rate required to reach "No Kill" status would mean we save 6750 of them, needing to increase true adoptions by 200 per month.

There are two different ways to get to no kill -- and both have to work together in order to achieve success. One, is increase adoptions. Half Way Homes is making good progress in this regard. The second, is minimize the number of animals coming into the shelter. Kansas City is fortunate to have a great low-cost spay/neuter option for low-income people at Spay/Neuter Kansas City. However, the other part of decreasing the number of animals coming into the shelter involves decreasing animal control's ability to take healthy, non-problems from homes and making them part of the shelter problem.

There are also a couple of city laws and policies that are making it much harder for Kansas City to achieve its no kill goal.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter of all "pit bulls"

Of the dogs that were impounded, 21% (1086) were 'pit bulls'. 25% (270) of the pit bulls that were impounded were impounded for no other reason than because of the law passed in 2006 that mandated that all pit bulls be spayed or neutered. 686 pit bulls were euthanized in the shelter last year. If we could have prevented all of the pit bulls from coming in because of the ordinance we could have brought down the entire pit bull euthanasia rate by at least 25% -- and if you assume that for each 'pit bull' brought into the shelter replaced another dog that was there, you could have cut 'pit bull' euthanasia down 40% just be getting rid of the law.

"Performance Standards"

In August of last year, the city instituted a "performance standard" that required animal control officers to meet a quota of impounding a minimum of 20 animals each month. In the first 7 months of the year, animal control officers averaged bringing in 303 dogs each month. In the final 5 months, it was 338 dogs per month. So with the 'new performance standards', city animal control officers brought in 35 more animals per month that Half Way Homes had to handle and adopt out -- that's an additional 420 dogs a year. While some of these additional dogs are a good thing (additional cruelty/neglect charges, strays picked up), a large number of them are a cause for concern.

It is possible, and even likely, that we could have cut shelter euthanasia by over 500 dogs just by eliminating these two policies.

If the shelter is going to have sustained success, it is not going to be enough to just adopt our way out of it -- we're going to have to minimize impounds as well. This means we need to keep up with aggressive low cost spay/neuter programs (Kansas City is fortunate to have a great low cost spay/neuter program in Spay/Neuter Kansas City) AND getting rid of policies and laws that are taking animals out of homes. And with the current 'performance standards" it will be virtually impossible for us to ever see a decrease in impounds.

In order to do this, we need not just the shelter doing its job, we need civic help as well --and we hope that animal control and the city council will work with us to get rid of these policies that are leading to increased shelter killing.

* Allow people to care for feral cat colonies and actually encourage Trap-Neuter-Return.

* Get rid of the 'performance standards' that require animal control officers to impound a certain number of animals each month.

The city must focus on the true pupose of animal control departments - protecting the public from dangerous animals and then animals from dangerous humans. Using taxpayer dollars to fund animal control officers to confiscate harmless, healthy animals from people is not a good use of city resources.

While great strides have been made now is not the time to sit on our laurels. We're still a long way from no kill and it is important that the city maintain the contract of a privatized shelter so we can build on that success. While it is not imperative that Half Way Homes keep the contract, we cannot allow the city to take control of the shelter back. Regardless of who runs the shelter, we cannot expect them to solely adopt our way to no kill. It is also important that the city leaders and the public know exactly where we stand in our quest to become a no kill city, so we can take the necessary steps to improve things further.The privatized shelter is a good first step. Improving animal control policies is a necessary next one.